I’m leaving on a jet plane…
I won’t be posting as often over the next two weeks, as I’m off for a well-deserved holiday with a good friend, in a place that has unreliable internet connections 
However, this is still relevant to environmental issues, since I’m flying to my overseas destination. My round-trip is about 27660 km altogether. According to a few carbon-calculators, this creates approximately 9.4 tonnes of greenhouse-gas emissions. I’m trying to reduce my eco-footprint in as many ways as possible, so I’ve bought a flight offset for this trip.
I chose to go with Neco’s flight offsets, for long-distance international flights. Neco is accredited by the NSW GGAS program, one of the first greenhouse gas trading schemes in the world, and is just about all that’s available in Australia. The scheme is audited regularly by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (IPART).
Neco gains carbon credits from the GGAS by helping individuals and businesses reduce their carbon emissions. When I buy a flight offset, they give some of those carbon credits back to NSWGGAS on my behalf. In effect, the carbon dioxide I’m creating by flying all over the place is offset by Neco’s hard work in reducing carbon dioxide emissions elsewhere.
There are other options for flight offsets in Australia: Todae, Climate Friendly, GreenFleet, Easy Being Green and Elementree offer a range of offsets, and some airlines and travel agents sell them too.
It’s very difficult to check up on the quality of offsets. More expensive doesn’t necessarily mean better quality, but there’s not really any other reliable indicator that you’ve spent your money wisely. Choice magazine is used to assessing the marketing claims of consumer products, and even they say it’s very difficult to tell what’s going on.
The ideal solution would be to find a method of fast long-distance transport overseas that doesn’t cause so much pollution. Teleconferencing for business is a good alternative to sending people, but it’s not really a replacement for spending time with your friends and family who live in remote areas. Until someone comes up with a better idea, I’m going to keep my flights infrequent, and offset the ones I do take.
I hope you all have a lovely time while I’m away. I’ve lined up one post for each week I’m away, to keep you entertained
December 1st, 2007 at 6:27 am
Hey there,
Thanks for the Link to Neco, I’ve been exploring a few of these options after hearing about Greenfleet on the radio this week. My boyfriend lives in Perth (I’m in Melbourne) and you’re so right about how sometimes you can’t substitute time in person with people you love. I will definitely be looking into doing carbon offsetting for when I travel to visit, or he comes here. Greenfleet is great too, their calculator allows you to add in your house, car, etc. and calculate your use for the year and they will plant trees to compensate for that. I think I’ll probably explore my options with both Neco and Greenfleet as they both seem like wonderful companies!
Blessings,
Donna
December 1st, 2007 at 11:49 am
Hi Donna - I can definitely recommend Greenfleet as I’ve got our car offset with them, and have always found their service to be great. I’m not entirely certain that tree-planting is the best offset for carbon emissions - but it’s fantastic for helping soil salinity and providing extra habitats for biodiversity, and therefore very sorely needed in Australia! If it helps take some carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as well, I’ll call it a win
Here’s hoping you get to see your boyfriend soon!
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
And of course I like to know where you are heading to
Wish you a great trip and enjoy the enrichment of another culture!
December 4th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Are Neco still surviving since the carbon price collapse under the NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme? Easy Being Green had to stop their “environmental services” (that didn’t leave them with much). I blogged about this and also the difficulties in using tree planting as a carbon offset.
I doubt there is
If average temperatures increase as they are predicted to, travelling long-distances may have to stop.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Well, at present there’s no alternative to flying for that kind of travel, but there’s been almost no research into making it more environmentally-friendly, or into any sort of alternatives. If people don’t want to look at new methods then yeah, we’ll have to stop doing it altogether.
Neco are still going, as far as I can tell. That’s a good article you wrote, thanks for the link.
I’m aware of the problems with tree-planting as offsets, but still think tree-planting for the environment generally is a good idea. I think of offsets as a last resort - as you know, it’s really not predictable enough, or well-regulated enough, to be certain of them having enough impact. But I’m also committed to trying out Australian products so that I can speak from experience about them, so I’ll keep giving them a go as long as my budget will allow
December 15th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Brilliant, next time I go out drinking, I can find someone who’s not drinking, pay him not to drink, and then I’ll be sober.
Carbon >/a> offsets are to environmentalists what indulgences were to medieval Catholics.
The best way to reduce the effect of our emissions is not to make them.
December 16th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Well, offsets = indulgences is one point of view, but I don’t think it’s an accurate analogy for the situation. David Roberts at Grist.org sums up my own opinion on the topic.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Paying someone else to emit less does not reduce your emissions.
Paying someone to reduce less when they were going to emit less anyway does not reduce your emissions.
In both cases, the main effect is to make you feel better while not changing your behaviour at all.
Paying people for doing nothing but make you feel better for your actions while not changing your actions is _exactly_ like indulgences. From your linked article, “It’s just stated, over and over again, as though it is axiomatically true, that the primary use of offsets is to excuse people’s bad behavior.”
Yes, because the money you pay for offsets has no other purpose. Not one project exists because of carbon offset payments. No low or zero emissions project has happened simply because of offset payments, nor has any financially marginal project become profitable because of them. It’s just financial icing on the cake for people who were going to bake it anyway.
Further, “If you don’t give a sh*t about the climate, why bother purchasing offsets?” Because the buyers do care about the climate, but not enough to actually change their behaviour. It’s like a man who’s unfaithful to his wife, she doesn’t know but he feels guilty anyway so he buys her some jewellry. He certainly gives a shit about her, he cares for her very much - just not enough to keep it in his pants.
Between “don’t give a shit” and “care deeply and act in the right way” there’s a whole spectrum of human behaviour. That includes, “care, but not enough to change, only to toss some money at it to make yourself feel better.”
If you want to have your emissions absorbed, invest in tree-planting - but be careful, because a lot of the schemes are just a way of getting extra cash for timber and pulp plantations, ie the things will be cut down in 5-20 years and so have zero net carbon absorption.
Simplest of all is to emit less.
It’s really not that complicated. If you don’t want to get drunk, drink less or stop drinking. If you don’t want the global climate to change…
December 17th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
There are a lot of inaccurate assumptions in your comment - the reductions I’m paying for weren’t going to happen anyway; it doesn’t matter to the atmosphere whose name is on the CO2, just that it’s there/not there; I do heaps to reduce my emissions, starting long before I could afford offsets; I’m already aware of the problems with tree-planting, and am capable of assessing a tree-planting project based on those issues, so thanks but I don’t need a lecture; and your claims about “no extra projects from offset programs” aren’t supported by any evidence or actual examples, and I can’t take your word for it since I’ve got no idea who you are.
I hope your rant on what a sinful environmentalist I am satisfies you in some way. But do you really think starting a conversation by calling people “drunks at a urinal” is a good way to get your message across? If you can’t bring some facts in to support your opinions, or stop insulting people who aren’t as green as you think they should be, then you’ll have to keep your comments for your own blog instead of mine.